Topic Anarchy
'Topic: Anarchy - 11/14/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/Topic-Anarchy/2/)' Instigator: Harlan (Con) Contender: Ivisman96 (Pro) Round 1 Harlan: "I would otherwise think this would be a silly thing to even bother saying, but looking at people's profiles, there is actually a surprising number of anarchists. The concept of anarchy being beneficial is naï¿½ve and reckless. Governments are in place for VERY important reasons. People are violent. It is true. It is part of human nature to kill other Humans. This may seem strange to us, but that is only because we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature. "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" -Thomas Hobbes There is a lot of wisdom to this. Without a government we would be in a constant state of war. I can guarantee you, that if people had no rules to govern them, the rate of death would SORE, resulting from murder being a regular thing, lack of protection, lack of organized and government funded medical institutions (disease), etc. To be in Anarchy is to be in complete chaos and un-organization. There would not be any significant advances in humanity, if there was not a government to organize it. We must have government. It is one of the things that make the human race so powerful. To have this mass organization, is an amazing feat for a species to accomplish. To remove the government is to put your own, individual self in danger. Though it sounds great to have freedom, people would abuse this freedom horribly. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil" -Common Sense (by Thomas Paine) By the way, I recommend Common sense. It is a good book to read." Ivisman96: "As we have spoken before, Harlan, thanks for reposting this topic. It is important to note that, to DEBATE something is not necessarily proof that one believes in it. I ask the readers not to vote their conscience, but rather to vote on who had the best 'argument' in stating their case. For that is the true measure of a debater's skill. Without further ado, Anarchy has it's value. Look at nature. Are there laws in place ? Do they have a system of government ? Nature polices itself. It is 'survival of the fittest'. You said it yourself, "we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature". So, the 'violent' are being discriminated against, which is then deemed that the "strong" are discriminated against because in a violent society, it is the strongest (physical OR mental) that survives. An anarchist society could function and even thrive, because if you are NOT strong, you will NOT survive. It would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans. So, anarchy has it's attraction; just not to the weak." Round 2 Harlan: "Hello, I was working on a rsponse, but that is on a different computer than I am currently using. I am about to go on a trip, tomorrow, that will last until sunday, when I will get back. I will not have internet access for this duration of time, so I cannot post anything here. It is saved on a different computer, though, and I SHOULD be able to post it in the next round." Ivisman96: "I waited to give you more time, Harlan. I won't post any argument here. Look forward to Round 3 ! ooga booga ooga booga--I needed to post more characters as it wouldn't let me post with what I had." Round 3 Harlan: "Very, very good point, ivisman!: "If you don't agree with me, then you are a weakling!", is basically what you were saying it seems like. I can see that you obviously don't understand, or are ignoring how, government started in the first place. "Would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans" Key concept: "outwit other humans". Did government not start off by people overpowering other humans? Could it be said, then that government is inevitable of Humans when they are intelligent enough. As circular as it may seem, would anarchy not through a subtle process create government, if at least a despotic one? Breaking away from the philosophical reflection, "An anarchist society could function and even thrive" I do not know what you are imagining. A "society" would be tense and unstable without laws. Murder would be a regular thing. I do not know what you think it is to "thrive", but I can assure you the world would not be pretty, if people were set free like that. Without government, where would we be? Whether it be a council of the people, a full-blown democracy, a commune, a kingship, or a tribal chief; We NEED government. In fact, without government, there would barely be any "society" at all. You say the "society" would thrive, because people are stronger. If the reason they are stronger is because they must kill (or "outwit") other humans, how is that a thriving society? A society will NOT work in any way if there are no rules. I would actually like to post the full quote to which I earlier only posted a portion of: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" Before it is even brought up, governments can be "bad" sometimes. They can be generally negative to their population sometimes, but the concept of it in general is important. Your argument seems to revolve around the strength of the population. The government, who organizes medical institutions, would not be in place, and the health would not be as good. They would use this strength to kill others. Quite personally, I would prefer a population of governed weaklings who get along together than a population of barbarous, reckless strong people" Ivisman96: "Going back to my first argument, you'll see that I don't necessarily agree with anarchy. However, I though it would be fun to defend it. The 'Strong' is only the first of my arguments. You stated that my first argument inferred "If you don't agree with me, then you are a weakling!" To which I reply "Are you saying that all STRONG people (mental AND physical) are evil and wouldn't use their attributes for good ?" My stepson so thoughtfully reminded me that I have forgotten 'more than any teenager will ever know', so I'll ignore your flame. I actually do know how and why government got started, and it wasn't only to protect people from being murdered. It was to facilitate commerce, provide for the common good, divy up the spoils on raids. Government (tribal councils, etc.) had their origins in the most powerful among them being their leaders. It wasn't that long ago that the kings in Europe were being assassinated by their rivals. Indeed, it still happens today. The case for anarchy can be made utilizing your own points: "Without a government we would be in a constant state of war"--I contend that throughout the history of government there has ALWAYS been some country at war. Our own country is an example. Governments ORGANIZE armies whose sole purpose is war. And if there were no 'organization' (going back to your first argument), there would not be any 'armies' to go to war. "There would not be any significant advances in humanity"--please define 'advances'. If you mean society as it stands now, I could point to numerous studies that show suicides, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. in the pursuit of the 'advances' humans have made. Also, pollution, man-made climate change on a global scale, mass extinctions, all are a consequence of human 'advancement'. A current panel of scientists has just put out a report that 'global warming' is an 'unequivocal fact' and that if we don't make drastic changes in the next three years, we are doomed. All due to human 'advances'. Anarchy has an attraction to the environment and other species on our planet. And since you DID bring it up, take a look at all the governments throughout history...despotic kings, Hitler's regime, pol pot, etc. There have been as many 'despotic' governments as there have been 'benevolent' ones. "As circular as it may seem, would anarchy not through a subtle process create government, if at least a despotic one?"--and therein lies the greatest attraction of all. 'Anarchy' leads to government, if only by the righteous taking up arms. With anarchy, the slate is wiped clean. A time of renewal. Anarchy, as a GOVERNMENT form cannot exist indefinitely. For alliances will be made eventually. A recent example is the Wild West in America. Murder and other crimes were rampant. Although, there was a 'government', it often was too far away or relied on one person in a town who commanded respect of the township, or the might of their gun for criminals. Fear of someone 'stronger' (or faster with a gun) had people reluctant to do wrong. There are just as many 'strong-good' people as there are 'strong-bad' people. It gave way to arguably the greatest nation on the planet today. A more recent example is the Soviet Union. They had a government. Which gave way to anarchy. Which allowed them to start over and build something stronger. So, you see, anarchy has some attraction. And history has it's share of 'poor' governments. GOOD governments are only as good as the people who run them. And anarchy can be good as well, if the good are the stronger."